This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, V3, #8 of 10], Miscellaneous prefixed addressing tests
- From: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot ibm dot com>
- To: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Cc: Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:01:25 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, V3, #8 of 10], Miscellaneous prefixed addressing tests
- References: <20190826173320.GA7958@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20190826214808.GH11790@ibm-toto.the-meissners.org> <20190903231723.GJ9749@gate.crashing.org>
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 06:17:23PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 05:48:08PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> > This patch contains the miscellaneous tests for GCC to test some features of
> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/paddi-1.c (revision 274879)
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/paddi-1.c (working copy)
> > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* } } } */
>
> Everything in gcc.target/powerpc implicitly has this. You may want
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> for documentation value, or simply because it is nicely symmetric if you
> also have run tests, but there is no need for the target clause.
>
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target powerpc_future_ok } */
>
> Why does this test return false if not on linux? That doesn't make much
> sense. A user can select -mcpu=future whatever OS he is on.
>
> We probably want a test saying if there is prefixed addressing, or the
> like, instead?
>
> > +/* { dg-options "-O2 -mdejagnu-cpu=future" } */
>
> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-odd-memory.c (revision 274879)
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/prefix-odd-memory.c (working copy)
> > @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* && lp64 } } } */
>
> All of these except the ld and std and lwa should work on -m32 as well,
> right?
I don't believe so. I don't think prefixed load/store instructions work on
32-bit at all.
> Right now this all is only supported on powerpc64le-linux, but it won't
> stay that way. I'm not looking forward to having to change all the tests,
> let's try to test for support of the actual feature we need, instead.
It depends on whether the test just tests the instruction (as many of these
tests do), or whether they are testing things using ELF syntax (i.e. @got and
@got@pcrel).
--
Michael Meissner, IBM
IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA
email: meissner@linux.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797